Payday loan companies

[ICTChris]

 

The largest payday loan company in the UK, Quick Quid, has announced they are closing. It’s thought that the firm was facing up to 10,000 complaints from lenders regarding the firms practices.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-50174367

 

Quick Quid follows Wonga and The Money Shop to the walk in recent years, with industry experts saying that government regulations causing significant reductions in the firms business and historic legal claims from customers racking up large compensation bills.

 

I doubt many people will bemoan the demise of companies flogging cash for very high interest rates but did these firms fulfil an important role, providing finance to people with bad credit and few savings? Or did their aggressive marketing create the demand and cause people who didn’t really need the money to apply for it? I always thought the adverts showing people paying for a new boiler or car part from a massive interest £150 until payday were a little far fetched.

 

Have any P&Bers ever taken out a payday loan? Did you appreciate the help or were you exploited?

Do any P&Bers fancy teaming up to offer loans for high interest? Failure to pay results in debtors being taken to Ruel st.

Can any P&Ber lend me a tenner? Just until next week.

[Jacksgranda]

4 minutes ago, ICTChris said:

 

The largest payday loan company in the UK, Quick Quid, has announced they are closing. It’s thought that the firm was facing up to 10,000 complaints from lenders regarding the firms practices.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-50174367

 

Quick Quid follows Wonga and The Money Shop to the walk in recent years, with industry experts saying that government regulations causing significant reductions in the firms business and historic legal claims from customers racking up large compensation bills.

 

I doubt many people will bemoan the demise of companies flogging cash for very high interest rates but did these firms fulfil an important role, providing finance to people with bad credit and few savings? Or did their aggressive marketing create the demand and cause people who didn’t really need the money to apply for it? I always thought the adverts showing people paying for a new boiler or car part from a massive interest £150 until payday were a little far fetched.

 

Have any P&Bers ever taken out a payday loan? Did you appreciate the help or were you exploited?

Do any P&Bers fancy teaming up to offer loans for high interest? Failure to pay results in debtors being taken to Ruel st.

Can any P&Ber lend me a tenner? Just until next week.

Lambeth/orange?

[Honest_Man#1]

Take it away @DA Baracus

[smpar]

And then the next week you owe two thousand pounds, and then the next week you owe three thousand pounds.

[welshbairn]

Danger is illegal loansharks will take up the slack, totally unregulated.

[Karpaty Lviv]

4 minutes ago, MixuFixit said:

To who?

Jack Jarvis esq

[Ross.]

There probably should be some nationalised, low interest institution that caters specifically for folk who have no credit history and want help to get themselves going, and folk who have struggled in the past and now need to get themselves back on an even keel. Leaving it to private enterprise has been an absolute fucking disaster, with profit going before any other consideration.

There also needs to be a huge change in attitude towards borrowing in general in the UK. Excluding mortgages and big ticket items, far too much is bought and paid for on credit.

[heedthebaa]

I worked for a door step lender for 25 years, they had their good points, but they had bad as well. The pressure from higher up was disgraceful at times though, all to reach targets. Glad I’m out of it now 

[DA Baracus]

18 minutes ago, Honest_Man#1 said:

Take it away @DA Baracus

Glad they're bust. Total scumbags like the rest.

I'm now convinced that they're all working together. The amount of texts, calls and emails you would get from these companies should you ever apply (successfully or not) for one was mental. Do a quick Google search for Payday loans and you'll see how many companies there are. There are also loads of 'brokers' which are simply a way of harvesting personal details.

The payday loan companies strongly push for folk to keep borrowing. That all these companies have been forced to pay back millions shows that they are horrible trash.

Credit Unions are probably the answer here.

 

[54_and_counting]

Sleekit b*****ds the lot of them, never used them (thankfully) but their practices were easily spotted, give a decent interest rate on a loan until payday knowing full well the poor sod couldnt pay it back by then, and then ramp up the interest afterwards 

And if said poor sod paid it back, they'd be humped for cash next month anyway, so they go back for a top up loan

[54_and_counting]

16 minutes ago, Ross. said:

There probably should be some nationalised, low interest institution that caters specifically for folk who have no credit history and want help to get themselves going, and folk who have struggled in the past and now need to get themselves back on an even keel. Leaving it to private enterprise has been an absolute fucking disaster, with profit going before any other consideration.

There also needs to be a huge change in attitude towards borrowing in general in the UK. Excluding mortgages and big ticket items, far too much is bought and paid for on credit.

And who pays for this nationalised, low interest institution, and who covers the debts when a lot of their "customers" just think "f**k it i aint paying it" 

[Jacksgranda]

3 minutes ago, 54_and_counting said:

Sleekit b*****ds the lot of them, never used them (thankfully) but their practices were easily spotted, give a decent interest rate on a loan until payday knowing full well the poor sod couldnt pay it back by then, and then ramp up the interest afterwards 

And if said poor sod paid it back, they'd be humped for cash next month anyway, so they go back for a top up loan

 

2 minutes ago, 54_and_counting said:

And who pays for this nationalised, low interest institution, and who covers the debts when a lot of their "customers" just think "f**k it i aint paying it" 

Which would you prefer?

The taxpayers paid for the bank bail out whenever they said "f**k it, we ain't paying it".

[Derry Alli]

35 minutes ago, MixuFixit said:

Given these companies all fold can we not just take out massive loans then not pay them back and wait for them to collapse?

They only offer 'X' amount to first time applicants then will slowly increase it. I would take a guess they've not been handing out any loans for a few months as they knew this was coming.

[Ross.]

5 minutes ago, 54_and_counting said:

And who pays for this nationalised, low interest institution, and who covers the debts when a lot of their "customers" just think "f**k it i aint paying it" 

Levy a charge against existing financial institutions to cover the start up cost with a smaller annual charge to cover any shortfall made. If anyone thinks "f**k it" then they end up going through the same process they would with any other bank.

Alternatively, let private companies take obscene amounts of interest from the public, which leads to lower levels of cash being available to spend by those who have borrowed, which leads them to end up in a cycle of debt that is difficult to break and costs the economy much more in the longer term.

[Gaz]

24 minutes ago, Ross. said:

There probably should be some nationalised, low interest institution that caters specifically for folk who have no credit history and want help to get themselves going, and folk who have struggled in the past and now need to get themselves back on an even keel. Leaving it to private enterprise has been an absolute fucking disaster, with profit going before any other consideration.

There also needs to be a huge change in attitude towards borrowing in general in the UK. Excluding mortgages and big ticket items, far too much is bought and paid for on credit.

There have been various companies set up in the past to do just what you describe - offer low-cost lending to people with poor credit histories.

Want to guess what happened to them? They went bust, because massive amounts of people with poor credit histories tend not to pay back money they've borrowed. Not all of them, but enough to make the business model unviable.

If you have a government-backed scheme, that pushes the cost onto all of us.

[DA Baracus]

10 minutes ago, 54_and_counting said:

Sleekit b*****ds the lot of them, never used them (thankfully) but their practices were easily spotted, give a decent interest rate on a loan until payday knowing full well the poor sod couldnt pay it back by then, and then ramp up the interest afterwards 

And if said poor sod paid it back, they'd be humped for cash next month anyway, so they go back for a top up loan

The interest part isn't true. It's the same rate throughout the duration of the loans.

[Ross.]

Just now, Gaz said:

There have been various companies set up in the past to do just what you describe - offer low-cost lending to people with poor credit histories.

Want to guess what happened to them? They went bust, because massive amounts of people with poor credit histories tend not to pay back money they've borrowed. Not all of them, but enough to make the business model unviable.

If you have a government-backed scheme, that pushes the cost onto all of us.

Starting with that last sentence, the current set up pushes far more of a cost onto the public purse than anything else does. Even ignoring the 2008 crash and bail outs, the debt cycle is hugely damaging to the UK's economy, reducing what people have available to spend never mind leaving them unable to save, meaning they are not only more likely to stay in debt, but more likely to see that debt increasing.

Any scheme along the lines of what I am suggesting would not be a simple "We will lend you money when no one else will". It would have to come with support to help people manage their money, with ongoing commitments to try and stop them from falling behind or making the same mistakes consistently. Habits would have to be changed and progress monitored, and not everyone would be in a position to get that help. No different to those who want help with health issues. You don't just give them some pills and send them on their way.

[54_and_counting]

13 minutes ago, Ross. said:

Starting with that last sentence, the current set up pushes far more of a cost onto the public purse than anything else does. Even ignoring the 2008 crash and bail outs, the debt cycle is hugely damaging to the UK's economy, reducing what people have available to spend never mind leaving them unable to save, meaning they are not only more likely to stay in debt, but more likely to see that debt increasing.

Any scheme along the lines of what I am suggesting would not be a simple "We will lend you money when no one else will". It would have to come with support to help people manage their money, with ongoing commitments to try and stop them from falling behind or making the same mistakes consistently. Habits would have to be changed and progress monitored, and not everyone would be in a position to get that help. No different to those who want help with health issues. You don't just give them some pills and send them on their way.

The current setup would still be here, but then added onto it will be the ones who cant get credit in the current setup, so they go to this taxpayer funded setup and shaft them rotten

The current setup is made up of companies wanting to make money, so if they think theres a good chance you can pay back your loan and interest they will give you it, so the ones going to the taxpayer funded setup are one that's money making companies won't touch with a bargepole, so why should joe public give them money they can't afford

And where does the line get drawn as to who csn apply for these loans, is it a certain level of income, disposable income, people with more debts that income etc

The public sector is already at breaking point financially without the government taking even more off them to help pay back the millions that the chantelles and wee tommos borrowed to spend on shite with no intention of paying back

[yoda]

5 minutes ago, 54_and_counting said:

 the millions that the chantelles and wee tommos borrowed to spend on shite with no intention of paying back

Tory found.

[Ross.]

3 minutes ago, 54_and_counting said:

The current setup would still be here, but then added onto it will be the ones who cant get credit in the current setup, so they go to this taxpayer funded setup and shaft them rotten

The current setup is made up of companies wanting to make money, so if they think theres a good chance you can pay back your loan and interest they will give you it, so the ones going to the taxpayer funded setup are one that's money making companies won't touch with a bargepole, so why should joe public give them money they can't afford

And where does the line get drawn as to who csn apply for these loans, is it a certain level of income, disposable income, people with more debts that income etc

The public sector is already at breaking point financially without the government taking even more off them to help pay back the millions that the chantelles and wee tommos borrowed to spend on shite with no intention of paying back

The public sector is at “Breaking point” through no reason linked to the actual finances of the public sector. It’s entirely politically designed.

Not everyone using this service would be bad debtors. There would are plenty of people who have no credit history to speak of who would use it to build that credit history, instead of being charged 5/6 times the going rate, simply because they have no history to speak of.

If people are eligible for loans elsewhere, they can go elsewhere. This is not designed to be a commercial enterprise, it would be a public service for those who need it.

I’m not advocating a bank that will allow folk to simply run up debt. I’m advocating a public service that helps educate the public and breaks the hold that high interest lenders have on large numbers of the population.